Paper · 1990 · Crop Science

Root Growth of Winter Wheat under Elevated Carbon Dioxide and Drought

U. N. Chaudhuri; M. B. Kirkham; E. T. Kanemasu

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
156
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

With the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 increasing, it is important to know how this will affect crop growth. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of enriched CO 2 on root growth of winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L. ‘Newton’) under both wellwatered and dry conditions. The wheat was grown for 3 yr in 16 plastic chambers (121 by 92 by 168 cm) in the field under ambient CO 2 (340 μL L −1 ) and elevated levels of CO 2 (485, 660, and 825 μL L −1 ). Each chamber was placed over an underground box (77 by 37 cm at the top; 180 cm deep) containing a Muir silt loam (fine‐silly, mixed, mesic Cumulic Haplustoll). The boxes could be pulled out of the ground for observation of roots. Half of the boxes were maintained at field capacity (0.38 m −3 m −3 ) (well‐watered or not stressed plants) and half between 0.14 to 0.25 m3 m 3 (drought‐stressed plants). At harvest, root dry weights at different depths and stem dry weight were determined. Roots of plants grown under the three elevated levels of CO 2 penetrated to the maximum depth of observation (176 cm) before roots of plants grown under the ambient level. At harvest, the difference in root growth between elevated and ambient levels of CO 2 was most pronounced at the top level (0‐ to 10‐cm depth). Roots of drought‐stressed plants grown with 825 μL L −1 CO 2 had a greater dry weight than roots of well‐watered plants grown with ambient CO 2 . The ratio of root to stem weight usually showed no trend (neither increase or decrease) with increasing CO 2 concentration. Total dry weight at harvest of well‐watered root grown at ambient CO 2 (3‐yr mean: 118 g m −2 ) was similar to that of drought‐stressed roots grown at the highest level of CO2 (3‐yr mean: 123 g m −2 ). The results indicated that high CO 2 (825 μL L −1 ) can compensate for restrictions in root growth by drought.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated carbon dioxide accelerated root penetration to 176 cm compared with ambient carbon dioxide.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
three elevated levels of CO 2e0
Outcome
penetrated to the maximum depth of observatione0
Direction
beforee0
Value
176 cme0
Comparator
ambient levele0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Roots of plants grown under the three elevated levels of CO 2 penetrated to the maximum depth of observation (176 cm) before roots of plants grown under the ambient level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 961–1131 · show in text ↑
t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The elevated versus ambient carbon dioxide root growth difference was greatest at 0 to 10 cm depth at harvest.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
elevatede0
Outcome
difference in root growthe0
Direction
most pronouncede0
Qualifier
0‐ to 10‐cm depthe0
Comparator
ambient levels of CO 2e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At harvest, the difference in root growth between elevated and ambient levels of CO 2 was most pronounced at the top level (0‐ to 10‐cm depth)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1275 · show in text ↑
t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 825 μL L −1 carbon dioxide, drought stressed roots had greater dry weight than well watered roots at ambient carbon dioxide.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
drought‐stressed plants grown with 825 μL L −1 CO 2e0
Outcome
dry weighte0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
well‐watered plants grown with ambient CO 2e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Roots of drought‐stressed plants grown with 825 μL L −1 CO 2 had a greater dry weight than roots of well‐watered plants grown with ambient CO 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1277–1420 · show in text ↑
t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–27 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root to stem weight ratio generally showed no trend with increasing carbon dioxide.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
increasing CO 2 concentratione0
Outcome
ratio of root to stem weighte0
Direction
no trende0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The ratio of root to stem weight usually showed no trend (neither increase or decrease) with increasing CO 2 concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1423–1545 · show in text ↑
t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ambient well watered and highest carbon dioxide drought stressed roots had similar total dry weight at harvest.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
drought‐stressed roots grown at the highest level of CO2e0
Outcome
Total dry weight at harveste0
Direction
similare0
Value
123 g m −2e0
Qualifier
3‐yr mean: 118 g m −2e0
Comparator
well‐watered root grown at ambient CO 2e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total dry weight at harvest of well‐watered root grown at ambient CO 2 (3‐yr mean: 118 g m −2 ) was similar to that of drought‐stressed roots grown at the highest level of CO2 (3‐yr mean: 123 g m −2 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1547–1747 · show in text ↑
t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–27 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High carbon dioxide can compensate for drought restrictions on root growth.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
high CO 2 (825 μL L −1 )e0
Outcome
restrictions in root growth by droughte0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“high CO 2 (825 μL L −1 ) can compensate for restrictions in root growth by drought”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1776–1858 · show in text ↑
t0

“Winter Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–27 · show in text ↑

co2 · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

145 papers: 124 positive, 21 negative or no effect

123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

141 papers more in this group

See all 145 papers →

co2 · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

203 papers: 174 positive, 29 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 174 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

199 papers more in this group

See all 203 papers →

drought · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

431 papers: 86 positive, 345 negative or no effect

85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 343 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

427 papers more in this group

See all 431 papers →

drought · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

632 papers: 95 positive, 537 negative or no effect

536 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

628 papers more in this group

See all 632 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.